Houston v. Rivens
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Judge.
Plaintiffs have brought forward multiple exceptions to the court’s instructions to the jury. While we agree that portions of the instructions are erroneous in themselves, we do not feel that they are sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial, when viewed contextually with the charge as a whole.
In their first assignment of error, plaintiffs contend that the court failed to explain the law as it applied to the facts of the case and failed to apply the law to the facts of the case. This assignment brings forward only that exception numbered 19, which doés not specify…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hammond Ex Rel. Hammond v. BullardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Wrenn v. WatersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Performance Motors, Inc. v. AllenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. LankfordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. BlueCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- Williams v. GrayCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. BlueCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- Townsend ex rel. Carter v. Noah Akers FryeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976